ADR 0201 gains the boundary found reading it back: a consumer keeping several
holders of a deriving provider is refused, because the two ends have no way
to agree. ADR 0189 gains two consequences — the sweep is bounded because it
runs inside a build, and an apply arriving mid-window reopens it.
That last one is issue 224, recorded rather than fixed: the host's rule for a
stopped container is to replace it, and while-stopped is the first thing that
makes a stopped container intentional. Both candidate fixes are decisions with
their own cost. Nothing is worse than it was; the store has never collected.
The bundles refactor took 0188 on main while this waited in a pull request,
and the mesh's own code cites that one, so this record moves. Only the number
moved; the decision is the one taken on 2026-10-02, and the record says so.
Issue 202 re-checked against the refactored main: the fault stands, and the
test that surfaced it now fails one step earlier on issue 203's new credential
guard. Proven again past both — mint the credential, compose twice, and all
eight of dnsmasq's resources appear only with the setting set. ADR 0164 is
noted as the decision that answers half of it, and is not built.
Issue 108: the artifact store has never collected anything. Fifty-three
repositories on the machine that serves everything else, and the only outcome
of leaving it is a full disk reported as somebody else's failure.
The mesh decides what may go — from its own build records, so it never names
a digest it did not put there — and the store reclaims the bytes in a nightly
window with its server held still. Deletion on the one door takes nothing a
push did not already have.
Designs 18 and 20 amended; issue 108 resolved.
Also issue 202, found running the controller's suite: a module whose required
setting nobody set is left out of the machine in silence, and dnsmasq became
that module this morning.
Issue 124: a value the mesh's own rule produced reached neither end as a
statement. The object store's provisioner derived each consumer's bucket in
its own code; all three consumers transcribed the rule into their own
definitions, one of them wrong, and each of the three also named the machine
it happens to run on.
A served value may now name the consumer the mesh is serving. Design 27
amended; issue 124 resolved.
jschoubben